From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reyes v. Annucci

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Sep 30, 2016
142 A.D.3d 1395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

09-30-2016

In the Matter of Earl REYES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent–Respondent.

Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Leah R. Nowotarski of Counsel), for petitioner-appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of Counsel), for respondent-respondent.


Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered March 5, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the motion of respondent to dismiss the amended petition.

Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Leah R. Nowotarski of Counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of Counsel), for respondent-respondent.

MEMORANDUM:Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent's handling of grievances concerning his medical treatment, and he now appeals from a judgment granting respondent's motion to dismiss the amended petition for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended petition. Although petitioner contends that grievances concerning denials of medical treatment filed by him on April 25 and May 2, 2014 were improperly denied, “an affidavit from the inmate grievance program supervisor confirms that petitioner never filed formal grievances corresponding to those dates,” as required by 7 NYCRR 701.5(a)(1) (Matter of Bookman v. Fischer, 99 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 952 N.Y.S.2d 303 ; see Matter of Muniz v. David, 16 A.D.3d 939, 939–940, 791 N.Y.S.2d 733 ). “Thus, petitioner ‘failed to exhaust the administrative remedies through the available grievance procedures or establish any exceptions thereto[,]’ and dismissal of the [amended] petition was ... proper on that basis” (Muniz, 16 A.D.3d at 939–940, 791 N.Y.S.2d 733 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, and CURRAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reyes v. Annucci

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Sep 30, 2016
142 A.D.3d 1395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Reyes v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF EARL REYES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Sep 30, 2016

Citations

142 A.D.3d 1395 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6388
38 N.Y.S.3d 481

Citing Cases

In re Strong v. Martuscello

In his answer, respondent submitted evidence that petitioner failed to appeal to CORC, which petitioner does…